The Functionalist Perspective

Functionalists view the family unit as a construct that fulfills important functions and
keeps society running smoothly.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Explain the social functions of the family through the perspective of structural functionalism

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key Points

 Functionalists identify a number of functions families typically perform:

reproduction; socialization; care, protection, and emotional support; assignment of
status; and regulation of sexual behavior through social norms.
 For functionalists, the family creates well-integrated members of society by
instilling the social culture into children.
 Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, “primitive” societies, lacking strong
centralized institutions, are based on an association of descent groups. These
clans emerge from family units.

Key Terms

 family: A group of people related by blood, marriage, law or custom.

 Radcliffe-Brown: A British social anthropologist from the early twentieth century
who contributed to the development of the theory of structural-functionalism.
 institution: An established organization, especially one dedicated to education,
public service, culture, or the care of the destitute, poor etc.

Structural functionalism is a framework that sees society as a complex system whose

parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. In this way, society is like an
organism and each aspect of society (institutions, social constructs, etc.) is like an
organ that works together to keep the whole functioning smoothly. This approach looks
at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social
structures that shape society as a whole. Functionalism addresses society in terms of
the function of its constituent elements: norms, customs, traditions and institutions.
Functionalists, in general, identify a number of functions families typically perform:
reproduction; socialization; care, protection, and emotional support; assignment of
status; and regulation of sexual behavior through the norm of legitimacy.

The Family
Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, “primitive” societies that lack strong
centralized institutions are based on an association of corporate-descent groups.
Structural functionalism also took on the argument that the basic building block of
society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa. Durkheim
was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal stability and
survive over time. Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts
function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies are
held together by organic solidarity.

Functions of the Family

For functionalists, the family creates well-integrated members of society and instills
culture into the new members of society. It provides important ascribed statuses such
as social class and ethnicity to new members. It is responsible for social replacement by
reproducing new members, to replace its dying members. Further, the family gives
individuals property rights and also affords the assignment and maintenance of kinship
order. Lastly, families offer material and emotional security and provides care and
support for the individuals who need care.

The Conflict Perspective

The conflict perspective views the family as a vehicle to maintain patriarchy (gender
inequality) and social inequality in society.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Analyze the family from the perspective of conflict theory

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key Points

 The conflict perspective describes the inequalities that exist in all societies
globally, and considers aspects of society as ways for those with power and status
to maintain control over scare resources.
 According to conflict theorists, the family works toward the continuance of social
inequality within a society by maintaining and reinforcing the status quo.
 Through inheritance, the wealthy families are able to keep their privileged social
position for their members.
 Conflict theorists have seen the family as a social arrangement benefiting men
more than women.
Key Terms

 family: A group of people related by blood, marriage, law or custom.

 inheritance: The passing of title to an estate upon death.
 Conflict Perspective: A perspective in the social sciences that emphasizes the
social, political or material inequality of a social group; critiques the broad socio-
political system; or otherwise detracts from structural functionalism and ideological
conservativism.

The Conflict perspective refers to the inequalities that exist in all societies globally.
Conflict theory is particularly interested in the various aspects of master status in social
position—the primary identifying characteristic of an individual seen in terms of race or
ethnicity, sex or gender, age, religion, ability or disability, and socio-economic status.
According to the Conflict paradigm, every society is plagued by inequality based on
social differences among the dominant group and all of the other groups in society.
When we are analyzing any element of society from this perspective, we need to look at
the structures of wealth, power and status, and the ways in which those structures
maintain social, economic, political and coercive power of one group at the expense of
others.

The Family

According to conflict theorists, the family works toward the continuance of social
inequality within a society by maintaining and reinforcing the status quo. Because
inheritance, education and social capital are transmitted through the family structure,
wealthy families are able to keep their privileged social position for their members, while
individuals from poor families are denied similar status.

Conflict theorists have also seen the family as a social arrangement benefiting men
more than women, allowing men to maintain a position of power. The traditional family
form in most cultures is patriarchal, contributing to inequality between the sexes. Males
tend to have more power and females tend to have less. Traditional male roles and
responsibilities are valued more than the traditional roles done by their wives (i.e.,
housekeeping, child rearing). The traditional family is also an inequitable structure for
women and children. For example, more than 60 percent of all mothers with children
under six are in the paid workforce. Even though these women spend as much (or
more) time at paid jobs as their husbands, they also do more of the housework and
child care.

6. Parsons's analysis of the family

 
In traditional societies, where families were the basis for social organization, many of
the societal functions (AGIL) were carried out in the family or in kinship-based
groupings.  Even in medieval times, there was little distinction between public and
private, and the family and household served the function of producer, consumer and
reproducer.  As the division of labour developed in modern times, many of the
functions formerly carried out in the family began to be performed in other
institutions.  The producer role generally became part of the economic structures of
society and were detached from the household.  Later, some of the socialization
function became detached from the family and moved to educational institutions – or
the socialization and education functions became separated.  While some analysts
have looked on this as indicating a decline in the family, Parsons argued that social
evolution and change has led to a change in the functions of the family.  This is part of
the separation of the AGIL functions from each other, so that separate structures,
institutions, and statuses become responsible for carrying out each of these four
functions.  Parsons views this functional differentiation positively, arguing that
specialized roles mean that functions can be better carried out.  While this
specialization may create problems of integration, there will also be new values, rules,
and norms that lead to new forms of integration in a more complex and more
productive society.
 
In the family, the public (jobs) and private (home) have become separated, with “the
invention of romantic love and the development of the division of labour inside
families along sex lines aids this separation.  Economic organizations have to develop
an authority system independent of kinship” (Knapp, p. 205).  For Parsons, the family
serves two essential functions in modern society, (a) the socialization of children, and
(b) “stabilization of the adult personalities of the population of the society” (Morgan,
p. 27).  These can be considered to be essential functions of society – primarily
integrative (I) and latent (L) – that create problems for society if they are not carried
out.  Too often the earlier, classical theorists had taken these for granted, and
considered them to be outside the scope of sociological analysis.
 
The structure of the modern nuclear family could be illustrated as follows (from
Morgan, p. 29).  Note that there are two dimensions to family structure, neither of
which can be reduced to the other.

 
                                                               Leader
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                            Power
                                    Adult Male                               Adult Female
                                      (Father)                                     (Mother)      
 
Instrumental                                              
                                                 Expressive
 
 
                                    Male Child                               Female Child   
                                       (Son)                                       (Daughter)                 
 
 
                                                             Follower
 
Source: D. H. J. Morgan, Social Theory and the Family, London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1975, p. 29.
 
The socialization process is on the vertical axis, and this generational axis is the main
form in which Parsons views power as being exercised in the family.  The father is the
head of the family in that he represents the family unit, and power is exercised by the
parents over the children.  This is for the children's own good.  Recall that power for
Weber was often legitimate, and much power within the family is accepted by the
subordinate as legitimate.  Johnson notes that Parsons did not “depict the father as
dominating his wife and children but only as having power by virtue of being their
representative” (Johnson, p. 124).  As such, Parsons may have ignored the power that
husbands have over wives, especially when the different activities of husbands and
wives and the income differerences are considered.
 
With respect to the horizontal axis, Parsons argueed that the instrumental role should
be carried out by the husband.  In order to survive, the family needed the income from
the husband's occupation, while the family also depended on the wife's expressive and
integrative activity.  This could involve attempts to respond to the psychological
needs of the husband and children, providing nurturing and warmth, and taking care
of the family and household needs.  This was functional (a) for the whole family unit,
and also (b) “functional for marital solidarity because it prevented potentially divisive
competition between husband and wife.”   It was also functional for (c) society as a
whole by providing a link of the private family to the society (through the
husband).  Johnson notes how this has been criticized by many, but feels that Parsons
was correct to make power and instrumental/expressive functions as independent
dimensions.  Power could go with either instrumental or expressive, although in
different forms. (paragraph based on Johnson, p. 125).
 
Parsons saw socialization within the family as having two different aspects: (a) it is
the way in which the individual internalizes the culture of a society or group, and (b)
it is the process whereby the individual learns and prepares to take on an autonomous
role.  Parsons is concerned with the whole social system, and the functioning of that
system, at the same time that he is concerned with the family and the socialization
process.  Adults must be prepared for their roles within society if the society is to
continue functioning, and the socialization process achieves this.  The family is also
an autonomous and isolated unit, and the socialization process prepares each child to
form a new isolated family unit of his or her own.  Morgan notes that this combines
the views of Freud (development of personality) and Durkheim (internalization of
culture).  Each ignored the contribution of the other, and Parsons attempts to combine
these.  Socialization thus is not just a cultural process of internalization of societal
values (cultural system) but is also one of developing a personality (personality
system).  The result of the socialization process is that the personality becomes a
mirror image of the experienced social system. (Morgan, p. 30).
 
While the family is isolated and autonomous, it is also linked to the wider system
through the father's instrumental role.  The role of the husband and father is to have a
status in the occupational structure (i.e. a job), and he would be subject to social
disapproval if he did not have a job.  The social status of the family as a whole is
based on the occupation and income of the husband.  This instrumental role serves the
dual function of linking the family to the outside world and maintaining the family as
a viable entity (adaptation function).  There are strains for the husband within this role
though, because (a) work itself may be unsatisfying, (b) there is little chance for real
social relationships outside the family, and (c) the family and the outside activities
may have conflicting demands. 
 
By carrying out the expressive role, the wife is just as necessary for the proper
functioning of the family.  She not only cares for the children and socializes them, but
also provides the emotional support for her husband.  In doing this, her role is also to
provide for internal maintenance of the family unit.  She is linked to the wider society
as well, through family and friends, and these undoubtedly provide guidance for
assisting in the socialization process.  At the same time strains do exist in her
role.  There are strains associated with (a) the socialization role as opposed to the
emotional support for the husband role.  There is also (b) a clash between the ideology
of equality of opportunity and the role of wife and mother.  Note also that an
individual family member may perform more than one role.  For example, the roles of
wife and mother are often identified as a single role, when in fact they may more
properly be considered to be different roles.  As wife, the adult woman in a family
unit may not have great power, perhaps not entirely due to male dominance, but due
to the limited opportunities women faced to earn income.  As mother, the adult
woman in this unit may have considerable power and status.  Johnson notes that
“women as wives tend to relatively powerless compared to women as mothers” (p.
127).         
 
In spite of these strains and conflicts, Parsons feels that the nuclear family, with this
strict division of roles, is well suited to modern industrial society.  The differentiation
by sex is functional for the individual, the family, and the society as a whole.  For
Parsons, having definiteness of status is important, both for the individuals involved,
and for children who are seeking role models.  Uncertainty and confusion in sex role
definition can be damaging to individual personalities and to the social system as a
whole.  (Morgan, pp. 30-38).
 
Criticisms of Parsons's theory of the family.  Parsons' analysis of the family has
been subject to much criticism.  The fixed nature of roles, the static nature of the
family, the rigid division between instrumental and expressive roles, the
underestimation of the extent of power (usually male), and the inherently conservative
and consensus nature of this approach, all have been subject to severe
criticism.  Many families today might be considered dysfunctional by Parsons,
because they do not perform the functions described by Parsons.  Some have argued
that confusion concerning roles affect family and socialization negatively, thus
weakening the whole society.  The family of Parsons was a well established white
family in North America in the 1940s and 1950s, usually of middle class or perhaps
working class origin and status.  Black, immigrant, poor or working class families,
and even upper class families, are all considerably different from the ideal types
described by Parsons.  It is difficult to know how Parsons would have reacted to the
changes in family and household structures that have occurred in the last 20-30 years
– decline in number of children, older age of marriage and childbearing, women
entering the labour force, single parent families, blended families, same sex families,
etc.  Judged by the AGIL criteria, pattern variables, and social differentiation, it could
be argued that these latter changes in the family have become necessary as a result of
other social changes, and may be functional for and promote stability in the operation
of the social system.
 
Parsons's contributions.  Parsons brought discussions of the family into the
mainstream of sociology, and developed an analysis of the social system that has the
family as an essential part, assisting in the latent and integrative functions.  This is
something that none of the classical sociologists recognized as necessary.  The
recognition of instrumental and expressive roles is a useful one, and if it is possible
for these to be combined in the same person, with each individual carrying out
different combinations of these, these concepts might be considered more
acceptable.  Johnson argues that Parsons was able to separate power as a concept from
the instrumental-expressive concept, and that this multidimensionality of
functionalism is a useful approach.  In this sense, Parsons makes use of Weberian
methodological approaches.  Perhaps some of these concepts and approaches could be
combined with feminist or other theoretical approaches to produce a more complete
model of the social system.

Theoretical Perspectives on Marriage and Family

Sociologists study families on both the macro and micro level to determine how families
function. Sociologists may use a variety of theoretical perspectives to explain events
that occur within and outside of the family.

Functionalism

When considering the role of family in society, functionalists uphold the notion that
families are an important social institution and that they play a key role in stabilizing
society. They also note that family members take on status roles in a marriage or family.
The family—and its members—perform certain functions that facilitate the prosperity
and development of society.

Sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that
there are four universal residual functions of the family: sexual, reproductive,
educational, and economic (Lee 1985). According to Murdock, the family (which for him
includes the state of marriage) regulates sexual relations between individuals. He does
not deny the existence or impact of premarital or extramarital sex, but states that the
family offers a socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults (Lee 1985). This outlet gives
way to reproduction, which is a necessary part of ensuring the survival of society.
Once children are produced, the family plays a vital role in training them for adult life. As
the primary agent of socialization and enculturation, the family teaches young children
the ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs,
and attitudes. Parents teach their children manners and civility. A well-mannered child
reflects a well-mannered parent.

Parents also teach children gender roles. Gender roles are an important part of the
economic function of a family. In each family, there is a division of labor that consists of
instrumental and expressive roles. Men tend to assume the instrumental roles in the
family, which typically involve work outside of the family that provides financial support
and establishes family status. Women tend to assume the expressive roles, which
typically involve work inside of the family which provides emotional support and physical
care for children (Crano and Aronoff 1978). According to functionalists, the
differentiation of the roles on the basis of sex ensures that families are well balanced
and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, the family is
thrown out of balance and must recalibrate in order to function properly. For example, if
the father assumes an expressive role such as providing daytime care for the children,
the mother must take on an instrumental role such as gaining paid employment outside
of the home in order for the family to maintain balance and function.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists are quick to point out that U.S. families have been defined as private
entities, the consequence of which has been to leave family matters to only those within
the family. Many people in the United States are resistant to government intervention in
the family: parents do not want the government to tell them how to raise their children or
to become involved in domestic issues. Conflict theory highlights the role of power in
family life and contends that the family is often not a haven but rather an arena where
power struggles can occur. This exercise of power often entails the performance of
family status roles. Conflict theorists may study conflicts as simple as the enforcement
of rules from parent to child, or they may examine more serious issues such as
domestic violence (spousal and child), sexual assault, marital rape, and incest.

The first study of marital power was performed in 1960. Researchers found that the
person with the most access to value resources held the most power. As money is one
of the most valuable resources, men who worked in paid labor outside of the home held
more power than women who worked inside the home (Blood and Wolfe 1960). Conflict
theorists find disputes over the division of household labor to be a common source of
marital discord. Household labor offers no wages and, therefore, no power. Studies
indicate that when men do more housework, women experience more satisfaction in
their marriages, reducing the incidence of conflict (Coltrane 2000). In general, conflict
theorists tend to study areas of marriage and life that involve inequalities or
discrepancies in power and authority, as they are reflective of the larger social structure.

Symbolic Interactionism
Interactionists view the world in terms of symbols and the meanings assigned to them
(LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). The family itself is a symbol. To some, it is a father,
mother, and children; to others, it is any union that involves respect and compassion.
Interactionists stress that family is not an objective, concrete reality. Like other social
phenomena, it is a social construct that is subject to the ebb and flow of social norms
and ever-changing meanings.

Consider the meaning of other elements of family: “parent” was a symbol of a biological
and emotional connection to a child; with more parent-child relationships developing
through adoption, remarriage, or change in guardianship, the word “parent” today is less
likely to be associated with a biological connection than with whoever is socially
recognized as having the responsibility for a child’s upbringing. Similarly, the terms
“mother” and “father” are no longer rigidly associated with the meanings of caregiver
and breadwinner. These meanings are more free-flowing through changing family roles.

Interactionists also recognize how the family status roles of each member are socially
constructed, playing an important part in how people perceive and interpret social
behavior. Interactionists view the family as a group of role players or “actors” that come
together to act out their parts in an effort to construct a family. These roles are up for
interpretation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a “good father,” for
example, was one who worked hard to provided financial security for his children.
Today, a “good father” is one who takes the time outside of work to promote his
children’s emotional well-being, social skills, and intellectual growth—in some ways, a
much more daunting task.

Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Sexuality

Sociologists representing all three major theoretical perspectives study the role
sexuality plays in social life today. Scholars recognize that sexuality continues to be an
important and defining social location and that the manner in which sexuality is
constructed has a significant effect on perceptions, interactions, and outcomes.

Structural Functionalism

When it comes to sexuality, functionalists stress the importance of regulating sexual

behavior to ensure marital cohesion and family stability. Since functionalists identify the
family unit as the most integral component in society, they maintain a strict focus on it at
all times and argue in favor of social arrangements that promote and ensure family
preservation.

Functionalists such as Talcott Parsons (1955) have long argued that the regulation of
sexual activity is an important function of the family. Social norms surrounding family life
have, traditionally, encouraged sexual activity within the family unit (marriage) and have
discouraged activity outside of it (premarital and extramarital sex). From a functionalist
point of view, the purpose of encouraging sexual activity in the confines of marriage is to
intensify the bond between spouses and to ensure that procreation occurs within a
stable, legally recognized relationship. This structure gives offspring the best possible
chance for appropriate socialization and the provision of basic resources.

From a functionalist standpoint, homosexuality cannot be promoted on a large-scale as

an acceptable substitute for heterosexuality. If this occurred, procreation would
eventually cease. Thus, homosexuality, if occurring predominantly within the population,
is dysfunctional to society. This criticism does not take into account the increasing legal
acceptance of same-sex marriage, or the rise in gay and lesbian couples who choose to
bear and raise children through a variety of available resources.

Conflict Theory

From a conflict theory perspective, sexuality is another area in which power differentials
are present and where dominant groups actively work to promote their worldview as
well as their economic interests. Recently, we have seen the debate over the
legalization of gay marriage intensify nationwide.

For conflict theorists, there are two key dimensions to the debate over same-sex
marriage—one ideological and the other economic. Dominant groups (in this instance,
heterosexuals) wish for their worldview—which embraces traditional marriage and the
nuclear family—to win out over what they see as the intrusion of a secular, individually
driven worldview. On the other hand, many gay and lesbian activists argue that legal
marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation and
that, historically, there already exists a precedent for changes to marriage laws: the
1960s legalization of formerly forbidden interracial marriages is one example.

From an economic perspective, activists in favor of same-sex marriage point out that
legal marriage brings with it certain entitlements, many of which are financial in nature,
like Social Security benefits and medical insurance (Solmonese 2008). Denial of these
benefits to gay couples is wrong, they argue. Conflict theory suggests that as long as
heterosexuals and homosexuals struggle over these social and financial resources,
there will be some degree of conflict.

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists focus on the meanings associated with sexuality and with sexual
orientation. Since femininity is devalued in U.S. society, those who adopt such traits are
subject to ridicule; this is especially true for boys or men. Just as masculinity is the
symbolic norm, so too has heterosexuality come to signify normalcy. Prior to 1973, the
American Psychological Association (APA) defined homosexuality as an abnormal or
deviant disorder. Interactionist labeling theory recognizes the impact this has made.
Before 1973, the APA was powerful in shaping social attitudes toward homosexuality by
defining it as pathological. Today, the APA cites no association between sexual
orientation and psychopathology and sees homosexuality as a normal aspect of human
sexuality (APA 2008).

Interactionists are also interested in how discussions of homosexuals often focus almost
exclusively on the sex lives of gays and lesbians; homosexuals, especially men, may be
assumed to be hypersexual and, in some cases, deviant. Interactionism might also
focus on the slurs used to describe homosexuals. Labels such as “queen” and “fag” are
often used to demean homosexual men by feminizing them. This subsequently affects
how homosexuals perceive themselves. Recall Cooley’s “looking-glass self,” which
suggests that self develops as a result of our interpretation and evaluation of the
responses of others (Cooley 1902). Constant exposure to derogatory labels, jokes, and
pervasive homophobia would lead to a negative self-image, or worse, self-hate. The
CDC reports that homosexual youths who experience high levels of social rejection are
six times more likely to have high levels of depression and eight times more likely to
have attempted suicide (CDC 2011).

Queer Theory

Queer Theory is an interdisciplinary approach to sexuality studies that identifies

Western society’s rigid splitting of gender into male and female roles and questions the
manner in which we have been taught to think about sexual orientation. According to
Jagose (1996), Queer [Theory] focuses on mismatches between anatomical sex,
gender identity, and sexual orientation, not just division into male/female or
homosexual/hetereosexual. By calling their discipline “queer,” scholars reject the effects
of labeling; instead, they embraced the word “queer” and reclaimed it for their own
purposes. The perspective highlights the need for a more flexible and fluid
conceptualization of sexuality—one that allows for change, negotiation, and freedom.
The current schema used to classify individuals as either “heterosexual” or
“homosexual” pits one orientation against the other. This mirrors other oppressive
schemas in our culture, especially those surrounding gender and race (black versus
white, male versus female).

Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argued against U.S. society’s monolithic
definition of sexuality and its reduction to a single factor: the sex of someone’s desired
partner. Sedgwick identified dozens of other ways in which people’s sexualities were
different, such as:

 Even identical genital acts mean very different things to different people.
 Sexuality makes up a large share of the self-perceived identity of some people, a
small share of others’.
 Some people spend a lot of time thinking about sex, others little.
 Some people like to have a lot of sex, others little or none.
 Many people have their richest mental/emotional involvement with sexual acts
that they don’t do, or don’t even want to do.
  Some people like spontaneous sexual scenes, others like highly scripted ones,
others like spontaneous-sounding ones that are nonetheless totally predictable.
 Some people, homo- hetero- and bisexual, experience their sexuality as deeply
embedded in a matrix of gender meanings and gender differentials. Others of
each sexuality do not (Sedgwick 1990).

Thus, theorists utilizing queer theory strive to question the ways society perceives and
experiences sex, gender, and sexuality, opening the door to new scholarly
understanding.

Throughout this chapter we have examined the complexities of gender, sex, and
sexuality. Differentiating between sex, gender, and sexual orientation is an important
first step to a deeper understanding and critical analysis of these issues. Understanding
the sociology of sex, gender, and sexuality will help to build awareness of the
inequalities experienced by subordinate categories such as women, homosexuals, and
transgender individuals.

Conflict Structural/Functionalist

Family
Kinship
Courtship
and marriage
Love and sex
Husband
Wife
Children
elderly

functionalist focus
their explanations on the assumption that
society naturally seeks to maintain its equilibrium
and that control is derived from
consensus regarding a specific set of values.